The DOI matches its Crossref record; 106 of the 106 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Creatures of habit (and control): a multi-level learning perspective on the modulation of congruency effects
Open accessAbstract
The congruency sequence effect (CSE) describes the finding that congruency effects in classic probes of selective attention (like the Stroop, Simon, and flanker tasks) are smaller following an incongruent than following a congruent trial. The past two decades have generated a large literature on determinants and boundary conditions for the CSE and similar, congruency-proportion based modulations of congruency effects. A prolonged and heated theoretical discussion has been guided primarily by a historically motivated dichotomy between "top-down control" versus "associative bottom-up" explanations for these effects. In the present article, I attempt to integrate and contextualize the major empirical findings in this field by arguing that CSEs (and related effects) are best understood as reflecting a composite of multiple levels of learning that differ in their level of abstraction. Specifically, learning does not only involve the trial-by-trial encoding, binding, and cued retrieval of specific stimulus-response associations, but also of more abstract trial features. Moreover, these more abstract trial or event features can be both external, such as the spatial and temporal context in which a stimulus occurs, as well as internal, like the experience of difficulty, and the attentional control settings that were employed in dealing with the stimulus. From this perspective, top-down control and bottom-up priming processes work in concert rather than in opposition. They represent different levels of abstraction in the same learning scheme and they serve a single, common goal: forming memory ensembles that will facilitate fast and appropriate responding to recurring stimuli or events in the environment.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions
Stroop, J. R. (1935) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0054651 · Cited by 18,622
An Integrative Theory of Prefrontal Cortex Function
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167 · Cited by 12,803
A feature-integration theory of attention.
Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(80)90005-5 · Cited by 12,366
Conflict monitoring and cognitive control
Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.624 · Cited by 7,351
Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science
Clark, A. (2013) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x12000477 · Cited by 5,924 · cited 3×
“While there are clear conceptual differences between the expectation- and conflict-based accounts (see, e.g., Egner, 2007; Egner et al., 2010; Duthoo et al., 2013; Jimenez and Mendez, 2013), for the present purpose they can both be considered core members of the “control-based” model category,…”
BackgroundHalf a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review.
MacLeod, C. M. (1991) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163 · Cited by 5,500
Memory and the hippocampus: A synthesis from findings with rats, monkeys, and humans.
Squire, L. R. (1992) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.99.2.195 · Cited by 5,376
Toward an instance theory of automatization.
Logan, G. D. (1988) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.95.4.492 · Cited by 3,466
Barto, A. G. (1998) · IFAC Proceedings Volumes · doi:10.1016/s1474-6670(17)38315-5 · Cited by 2,976
Learning the value of information in an uncertain world
Behrens, T. E. J., Woolrich, M. W., Walton, M. E., & Rushworth, M. F. S. (2007) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1954 · Cited by 2,053
Cited by
Getting a Grip on Cognitive Flexibility
Braem, S., & Egner, T. (2018) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721418787475 · Cited by 299
Self-citationGrounding cognitive control in associative learning
Abrahamse, E., Braem, S., Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2016) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000047 · Cited by 276
Evidence against conflict monitoring and adaptation: An updated review
Schmidt, J. R. (2019) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-018-1520-z · Cited by 127
Vahid, A., Mückschel, M., Stober, S., Stock, A.-K., & Beste, C. (2020) · Communications Biology · doi:10.1038/s42003-020-0846-z · Cited by 87
Monitoring demands for executive control: shared functions between human and nonhuman primates
Mansouri, F. A., Egner, T., & Buckley, M. J. (2017) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/j.tins.2016.11.001 · Cited by 89
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Egner, T.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2014-11-06
- Volume
- 5
- Pages
- 1247-1247
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1992602141
- Cited by
- 253
- References
- 106
- FWCI
- 9.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Creatures of habit (and control): a multi-level learning perspective on the modulation of congruency effects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01247
- The paper
- Egner, T. (2014). Creatures of habit (and control): a multi-level learning perspective on the modulation of congruency effects. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01247
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.